If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?

[dismal]

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

Silly. Your property doesn’t belong to you.

This, but unironically

I choose to find it ironic in light of the thread title.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, at least the Democrats think I'm rich.

Why? Will you be affected by the wealth tax being proposed? Why are you bring so evasive?

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

Your very first post in this thread implied to all that you are rich. Your background, which you also stated, doesn't seem to back that up.

 

[dismal]

Jeez, it's a tough call. Do I want to broadcast my personal financial details to leftist assholes on the internet for no particular benefit or not?

Your very first post in this thread implied to all that you are rich. Your background, which you also stated, doesn't seem to back that up.

It depends on how you define "rich". I usually qualify when Democrats define it.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do Democrats define it?

 

[dismal]

How do Democrats define it?

Try the google.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do Democrats define it?

Try the google.

It's your argument. You back it up.

 

[dismal]

How do Democrats define it?

Try the google.

It's your argument. You back it up.

Why could possibly have deluded you into thinking I have any need to prove anything about my personal finances to you?

 

[ZiprHead]

I declare this thread officially...

DISMALIZED.

 

[lpetrich]

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

I will concede that one does have to have some skill and some diligence. But one does not need to be a superhuman genius or a superhuman Stakhanovite, and all I see from capitalist apologists is that being rich means that one is a Stakhanovite genius.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you are talking about Trump, that is NOT how he made his fortune. Trump did well because he took an incredible risk with his Dads business by buying into Manhattan properties.

Like Bush Jr., Trump was handed boatloads of cash by daddy multiple times and blew most of it. He "risked" $ he didn't need and it failed most of the time. With so much free $ he had the luxury to keep betting until he hit on a few big things by chance. Then he made some additional $ by investing in criminal scams where he stole from people. So, you're right that it isn't just luck, a lack of ethics and criminal behavior was also central to building his fortune as it is with most billionaires.

And yes. Luck plays a big role as well. But without being able to take on the risk in the first place there is never any chance for the luck to come into play.

You've got it backwards, without being lucky enough to be handed more $ than you need for the rest of your life, it's a whole lot harder to take risks with $ you weren't given.

 

[Derec]

Turns out it’s just chance.

Not even the article claims that it is "just chance". While chance plays a role, and the Italian reseaecher claims it plays a big role, not even he claims that it is the only thing that matters.

 

[TSwizzle]

Turns out it’s just chance.

Not even the article claims that it is "just chance". While chance plays a role, and the Italian reseaecher claims it plays a big role, not even he claims that it is the only thing that matters.

To be fair, "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance." is the actual title of the article.

I found this paragraph interesting;

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

Never coincides with the maximum talent ? Just pure luck ? I have my doubts about that claim. (Wait, isn't the researcher actually saying it is dumb luck after all ?"

 

[bilby]

Maybe because most of us didn't have granddaddies who ran whorehouses and daddies who handed us millions and taught us how to con the real estate market.

If you are talking about Trump, that is NOT how he made his fortune. Trump did well because he took an incredible risk with his Dads business by buying into Manhattan properties. Howard Hughs got rich by risking his inheritance in the same way. There are a lot of people who do not appreciate how rare and difficult it is to take on that kind of risk. Most people would rather live modestly and work for someone else than to take on that kind of risk.

And yes. Luck plays a big role as well. But without being able to take on the risk in the first place there is never any chance for the luck to come into play.

Most people would rather work for someone else and play it safe. And those are the people (most of us) who will never get rich.

Yup. It was a HUGE risk - if someone had discovered another dozen Manhattan Islands, he would have lost most of his stake.

And obviously, Having that stake in the first place was down to his brilliance in choosing the right parents. I really fucked that one up.

 

[bilby]

To be fair, "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance." is the actual title of the article.

I found this paragraph interesting;

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

Never coincides with the maximum talent ? Just pure luck ? I have my doubts about that claim. (Wait, isn't the researcher actually saying it is dumb luck after all ?"

Well, how many Nobel prize winners in science or medicine; or how many Fields medallists, have private jets?

And how many private jet owners win those academic prizes?

It's pretty clear that the overlap between people at the top of the financial standings, and people at the top of the intellectual standings, is zero.

We live in a world where nobody is even vaguely surprised by the fact that Paris Hilton and Kanye West have private jets, while Donna Strickland and Greg Winter do not.

It's unsurprising because we all know that riches don't come from the use of our intellect.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What determines whether someone has the capital to risk in the first place, genius?

If you don't have a rich dad, it will be your credit worthiness. Showing the bank you are determined to pay them back with interest.

Where is the confusion? I'm a former banker. I've leant money before to people of pretty meager means. However, they were able to demonstrate the ability to service debt and had excellent credit history.

 

[dismal]

This news would have been far more useful before I worked hard in high school to get into a good college, worked hard in college to get an engineering degree, worked hard in graduate school, and worked hard in all my jobs.

If I had known I could have been just as successful sitting on a couch in my parents basement drinking beer I might have lived my life differently.

I will concede that one does have to have some skill and some diligence. But one does not need to be a superhuman genius or a superhuman Stakhanovite, and all I see from capitalist apologists is that being rich means that one is a Stakhanovite genius.

I don’t believe that’s a common argument at all. People who inhabit reality have met hundreds of people who are reasonably book smart and almost entirely useless - or worse than useless. And many people who are not particularly book smart and have made a bunch of money by seizing on the right opportunity at the right time.

 

[dismal]

To be fair, "If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance." is the actual title of the article.

I found this paragraph interesting;

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

Never coincides with the maximum talent ? Just pure luck ? I have my doubts about that claim. (Wait, isn't the researcher actually saying it is dumb luck after all ?"

Well, how many Nobel prize winners in science or medicine; or how many Fields medallists, have private jets?

And how many private jet owners win those academic prizes?

It's pretty clear that the overlap between people at the top of the financial standings, and people at the top of the intellectual standings, is zero.

We live in a world where nobody is even vaguely surprised by the fact that Paris Hilton and Kanye West have private jets, while Donna Strickland and Greg Winter do not.

It's unsurprising because we all know that riches don't come from the use of our intellect.

Intelligence is modestly important in some fields but not near as important as effort applied on a “success vector”. If you apply yourself in high school, get into a decent college, get a marketable degree, show up for work on time, do a decent job on your work, present yourself reasonably well and avoid facial tattoos you ought to do ok even with average intelligence.

You can have a 200 IQ but if you sit in your parents basement playing video games and railing about how unfair life is, not so much.

 

[lpetrich]

I will concede that one does have to have some skill and some diligence. But one does not need to be a superhuman genius or a superhuman Stakhanovite, and all I see from capitalist apologists is that being rich means that one is a Stakhanovite genius.

I don’t believe that’s a common argument at all. ...

How convenient. I've seen lots and lots of weeping from capitalism apologists about how hard their heroes worked.

 

[Derec]

Well, how many Nobel prize winners in science or medicine; or how many Fields medallists, have private jets?

Why is the private jet the measure of all things here? Nobel prize winners, at least for the important prizes, tend to do very well for themselves. And the prize itself comes with a ca. million dollar cash prize. Might not buy you a Gulfstream, but is more then enough for a Cessna, if you are into flying.

That said, many people who have made a killing in business have science or engineering backgrounds.
Elon Musk has degrees in physics and economics from and has pursued a PhD in energy physics.
Jeff Bezos has degrees in electrical engineering and computer science.
Even Koch brothers - Charles has Masters degrees in chemical and nuclear engineering from MIT. David has MS in chemical engineering from MIT as well.
And many more.
So they may not be Nobel prize winners, but they are obviously smart and educated and their success is not just chance.

And how many private jet owners win those academic prizes?

I would guess not many. But I would also say that it will certainly be a greater percentage than in the general population and probably a greater percentage than among aspiring rappers (you brought up Kanye). But again, why are private jets the sine qua non here?
Physicists, chemists, biomedical researchers or economists on top of their fields make good living. Certainly much better than the average person in the US. Why only care about the interface between Nobel prizes and private jets?

It's pretty clear that the overlap between people at the top of the financial standings, and people at the top of the intellectual standings, is zero.

It is clear that the overlap between top academic honors and top financial standings is small. That is because generally starting companies and dedicating one's life to academia are different life paths. But that does not mean success (either financial or academic) is random chance.

We live in a world where nobody is even vaguely surprised by the fact that Paris Hilton and Kanye West have private jets, while Donna Strickland and Greg Winter do not.

Funny you should bring up Greg Winter. If he does not have private jets, that is not because he could not afford one, given that he has founded several very successful biotech companies.
Meet the Founder of the UK’s Best Biotech that Discovered Humira
Just because he is not incessantly posting photos of it on his Insta does not mean he doesn't have one either.

As to Donna Strickland, she and her EE husband have been doing quite well for themselves, even before the Nobel Prize money.

It's unsurprising because we all know that riches don't come from the use of our intellect.

Not always, but often they do. Studying science or engineering is a much more reliable route to a six figure income than pursuing a career in rapping or releasing a sex tape.

 

[bilby]

Well, how many Nobel prize winners in science or medicine; or how many Fields medallists, have private jets?

And how many private jet owners win those academic prizes?

It's pretty clear that the overlap between people at the top of the financial standings, and people at the top of the intellectual standings, is zero.

We live in a world where nobody is even vaguely surprised by the fact that Paris Hilton and Kanye West have private jets, while Donna Strickland and Greg Winter do not.

It's unsurprising because we all know that riches don't come from the use of our intellect.

Intelligence is modestly important in some fields but not near as important as effort applied on a “success vector”. If you apply yourself in high school, get into a decent college, get a marketable degree, show up for work on time, do a decent job on your work, present yourself reasonably well and avoid facial tattoos you ought to do ok even with average intelligence.

Sure.

But the OP isn't discussing 'doing OK', it's talking about getting RICH.

You can have a 200 IQ but if you sit in your parents basement playing video games and railing about how unfair life is, not so much.

Indeed.

But if you have a 200 IQ, apply yourself in high school, get into a decent college, get a marketable degree, show up for work on time, do a decent job on your work, present yourself reasonably well and avoid facial tattoos, you will still never own a Lear Jet, or your own island, or have a billion dollars in investments. You might make it to the very top of the middle classes by such application. But you won't be a multi billionaire. That requires luck. A LOT of luck.

The re-framing of this argument, to suggest that being at the top of the middle class qualifies you as rich, and that therefore riches are a function of effort and/or ability rather than luck, might make you feel a whole lot better about yourself - but it's not a rebuttal to the OP, it's just dodging it.

Perhaps you can get yourself, through effort and ability, into a position where you earn a quarter million a year, have paid off your home, and have no debts at the age of 45. But that's pretty close to as secure as you can expect to get via that effort and ability - and it's both a LONG way from the top of the rich list, and only one crippling accident away from a slide into penury.

Bill Gates has a net worth of about $90 billion. If he invests his capital at a measly 5% return, that's an income of around 450 million dollars a year. a nine figure income.

Equivocating on the word 'rich' so that it includes people on six figure incomes as well as those on nine figure incomes is as reasonable as suggesting that a person on $9,000 a year is at the upper end of the middle class, because he's within three orders of magnitude of the same income.